"Some scientists have discovered that the intelligence of climate change deniers is highly likely to be statistically indistinguishable from that of a randomized sample of invertebrates. This is likely due to similarities in their biological and chemical composition."

10% toxic.

That seems right though "10% toxic". It's not "10% offensive". It's a judgement as to how likely to inhibit further rational discussion. Presenting as malodourous a slight as you like in well laid out language and with clear thought _is_ less likely to be "toxic" - people can respond, it's when you get back and forth ad-hominems that the conversation has ceased being functional beyond catharsis and "conflict entertainment".

Edit: Oh yeah, and your direct maternal ancestor has a suffusion of scent akin to the fruiting of the Sambucus plant!

18% toxic, "Our President is our fearless leader, he is infallible."

There appears to be some political bias: 13% "Clinton" 25% "Hillary" 35% "Donald" 37% "Trump"

Yes I saw that too but it doesn't pick up everything.

"Adolf was right" - 17%.

"Hitler was right" - 55%

It is interesting game, but not incredibly useful.

"Most reasonable people would agree that the average intelligence of a Hacker News commenter is only slightly higher than an insect's."

14%

The addition of "reasonable" dropped it from 19% to 14%. Ending the statement in an exclamation point would up by 7%.

You don't need to be subtle at all for <30% toxicity.

  Only baboons believe the climate change is real.

25% toxicity.